Norman Gradsky v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Norman Gradsky v. United States

482 F.2d 1379, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8042

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided September 5, 1973·No. 73-2152·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

It is hereby ordered that this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction since the judgment sought to be appealed is not final as to all of the appellant’s claims. 1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; Rule 54(b), F.R.Civ.P.; Graham v. Cole, 5th Cir. 1973, 483 F.2d 255; Jones v. Riggsby, 5th Cir. 1973, 475 F.2d 760; United States v. Crow et al., 5th Cir. 1973, 474 F.2d 200.

Dismissed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(e)(2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

It is hereby ordered that this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction since the judgment sought to be appealed is not final as to all of the appellant’s claims. 1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; Rule 54(b), F.R.Civ.P.; Graham v. Cole, 5th Cir. 1973, 483 F.2d 255; Jones v. Riggsby, 5th Cir. 1973, 475 F.2d 760; United States v. Crow et al., 5th Cir. 1973, 474 F.2d 200.

Dismissed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(e)(2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

Norman Gradsky v. United States, 482 F.2d 1379, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8042 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

482 F.2d 1379 (Norman Gradsky v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related